Help identify a strange Summicron 35mm 8-element (re-posted in International forum)

[busyx2]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

This is a local Summicron 35 8-element available locally without the goggles.  The serial number 1687XX.

What is really strange is that it does not belong to any of the known 8-element variants to my knowledge.

The close focus marking on the lens is 0.7, but it has a LTM mount.

If this lens was modified from a goggled Cron, then the close focus marking should be 0.65, 0.7

But if this is a LTM then the close focus marking should be 1m.  

The focus coupling on this lens worked well and the focusing was spot on, and there is no copper line from the goggle removal.

The other strange thing is that the front element appears to be much smaller than what I have seen.

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[a.noctilux]

Somebody took out the factory fit ring retained with a small screw.

Then replaced with generic LTM to M ring.

 

Front lens size is normal for me as this can be related to the glass in use in this particular lens.

 

End of story ?

[busyx2]

Update - did a side-by-side exposure test.

Wide open, the 'F2' on this lens is 1/2 stop dimmer than a comparing Summicron 35mm 7-element.

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

[a.noctilux]

if you need a bit more infos here

For the "1/2 EV dimmer" at f/2, comparing "I" to "IV",

I know this for years, but never bother to find why, sorry.

Maybe glass index in use not same light absortion or one lens more 8/7 with less light passing through.

Anyway F stops in wide open lenses are mainly geometric measure, not easy to verify in complex lens.

 

In another field ("video"/film making), they use T stop for same reason.

 

Edited February 16, 2022 by a.noctilux

[Jul]

5 hours ago, a.noctilux said:

Front lens size is normal for me

To me the front of the lens looks more like a summaron 2.8 than like a summicron. 

[UliWer]

I think Jul's observation is a good one. 

When I look at the front of my Summicron (No. 1630xxx) I see 6 concentric black rings in the space between the engraved front and the first lens element. My Summaron 1677xxx has ten of these rings - the first lens element is much more recessed. 

Looking at the front of the lens shown here there are certainly more than six concentric rings. The lens element also looks much more recessed.

[TomB_tx]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Perhaps someone swapped the front trim ring from a Summicron onto a Summaron...?

(I have both types, and actually prefer the Summaron rendering.)

Edited February 16, 2022 by TomB_tx

[Erato]

12 hours ago, busyx2 said:

This is a local Summicron 35 8-element available locally without the goggles.  The serial number 1687XX.

What is really strange is that it does not belong to any of the known 8-element variants to my knowledge.

The close focus marking on the lens is 0.7, but it has a LTM mount.

If this lens was modified from a goggled Cron, then the close focus marking should be 0.65, 0.7

But if this is a LTM then the close focus marking should be 1m.  

The focus coupling on this lens worked well and the focusing was spot on, and there is no copper line from the goggle removal.

The other strange thing is that the front element appears to be much smaller than what I have seen.

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

On your picture No#2 indicated 2'4"(0.6096m) which is unusual because it's different engraved while comparing with either goggle at 2'2" to 2'6"(0.65m) or 8-Elements at 28"(0.70m).

Okay, that's new for me.  An LTM version?

Edited February 17, 2022 by Erato

[wizard]

vor 16 Stunden schrieb busyx2:

What is really strange is that it does not belong to any of the known 8-element variants

As I had already pointed out to you in the German section of this forum (where you had posted your inquiry initially):

This item was originally a non-goggled M mount lens. The factory fitted LTM to M adapter was removed (as evidenced by the recess between the LTM adapter now mounted to the lens and the rest of the body of the lens), and it seems that you have now fitted a regular LTM to M adapter to this lens. In any case, this is not an original scerw mount lens, so beware of paying a (higher) screw mount lens price.

Further, this lens is not a Summicron lens either. From the look of the front element, I am 100% sure that this is in fact a Summaron 2.8/35mm lens. How someone managed to fit the Summicron's aperture ring and body to this lens is beyond my knowledge, but if you compare the front of a Summicron 35 version 1 to the front of a Summaron 2.8/35, you will quickly see what I mean. The diameter of the front lens element of the Summicron 35 v1 is visibly bigger than that of the contemporary Summaron.

 

vor 15 Stunden schrieb a.noctilux:

Front lens size is normal for me

Arnaud, normal for a Summaron 2.8/35, but not for a Summicron 35 v1. I own both a goggled version of the Summicron 35 v1 and an LTM version of the Summaron 2.8/35, so I know those two lenses quite well. Somebody must have fitted the optical cell of a Summaron 2.8/35 into the body of a contemporary Summicron 35, for whatever reason.

Best,

Andy

Edited February 17, 2022 by wizard
correction

[Erato]

2 hours ago, wizard said:

As I had already pointed out to you in the German section of this forum (where you had posted your inquiry initially):

This item was originally a non-goggled M mount lens. The factory fitted LTM to M adapter was removed (as evidenced by the recess between the LTM adapter now mounted to the lens and the rest of the body of the lens), and it seems that you have now fitted a regular LTM to M adapter to this lens. In any case, this is not an original scerw mount lens, so beware of paying a (higher) screw mount lens price.

Further, this lens is not a Summicron lens either. From the look of the front element, I am 100% sure that this is in fact a Summaron 2.8/35mm lens. How someone managed to fit the Summicron's aperture ring and body to this lens is beyond my knowledge, but if you compare the front of a Summicron 35 version 1 to the front of a Summaron 2.8/35, you will quickly see what I mean. The diameter of the front lens element of the Summicron 35 v1 is visibly bigger than that of the contemporary Summaron.

 

Arnaud, normal for a Summaron 2.8/35, but not for a Summicron 35 v1. I own both a goggled version of the Summicron 35 v1 and an LTM version of the Summaron 2.8/35, so I know those two lenses quite well. Somebody must have fitted the optical cell of a Summaron 2.8/35 into the body of a contemporary Summicron 35, for whatever reason.

Best,

Andy

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

Andy, you've just got one vote from me. I've just count the layers of my 8-E.

The step-up hood layers from the lens surface to the aperture(name) ring is obviously different, 9 steps(Summicron 8-E) against 13 steps(Summaron).

Edited February 17, 2022 by Erato

[wizard]

vor 13 Minuten schrieb Erato:

The step-up hood layers from the lens surface to the aperture(name) ring is obviously different, 9 steps(Summicron 8-E) against 13 steps(Summaron).

Glad you checked this. To me, the diameter of the front lens element was the give-away, as it is considerably smaller than the Summicron's. Understandably so, since the Summicron must have a larger diameter front lens element to justify its f2 designation.

Apparently, the OP has already verified that his "8-element Summicron" renders visibly dimmer at f2 than another 35mm Summicron, which proves my point. BTW, I don't have my lenses at hand, do you know whether the Summaron's smallest aperture is 22? If so, that would explain how the Summicron's aperture ring can be used on the optical cell of a Summaron. If I remember correctly, the Summicron's smallest aperture is 16, such that all aperture settings would be one f-stop off when using the Summicron's aperture ring on the Summaron's optical cell.

[Erato]

1 minute ago, wizard said:

Glad you checked this. To me, the diameter of the front lens element was the give-away, as it is considerably smaller than the Summicron's. Understandably so, since the Summicron must have a larger diameter front lens element to justify its f2 designation.

Apparently, the OP has already verified that his "8-element Summicron" renders visibly dimmer at f2 than another 35mm Summicron, which proves my point. BTW, I don't have my lenses at hand, do you know whether the Summaron's smallest aperture is 22? If so, that would explain how the Summicron's aperture ring can be used on the optical cell of a Summaron. If I remember correctly, the Summicron's smallest aperture is 16, such that all aperture settings would be one f-stop off when using the Summicron's aperture ring on the Summaron's optical cell.

Yeap, your assumption is correct, AFAIK, FYR.

• F stop range - f/2.8-f/22 -- Summaron-M 35mm f/2,8
• F stop range - f/2-f/16 -- Summicron-M 35mm f/2

[wizard]

vor 14 Minuten schrieb Erato:

Yeap, your assumption is correct, AFAIK, FYR.

• F stop range - f/2.8-f/22 -- Summaron-M 35mm f/2,8
• F stop range - f/2-f/16 -- Summicron-M 35mm f/2

Bingo! Thank you for confirming, this is what I had thought, but I was not entirely sure.

[a.noctilux]

I was wrong saying the lens size is normal.

Thanks Andy normal for 35mm Summaron 2.8 but not for Summicron.

 

Interesting why somebody had put optical cell of Summaron on Summicron body.

Having at hand, the lens sizes difference are visible.

 

Just count the rings, that is 6 on Summicron, and 11 on Summaron 2.8

[wizard]

vor 11 Minuten schrieb a.noctilux:

Interesting why somebody had put optical cell of Summaron on Summicron body.

To make more money? 🙂

[a.noctilux]

7 hours ago, Erato said:

On your picture No#2 indicated 2'4"(0.6096m) which is unusual because it's different engraved while comparing with either goggle at 2'2" to 2'6"(0.65m) or 8-Elements at 28"(0.70m).

Okay, that's new for me.  An LTM version?

2'4", is about 70cm (you forgot the 4"=10.16cm) to add to 2' 😉 (60.96cm)

[Erato]

34 minutes ago, a.noctilux said:

2'4", is about 70cm (you forgot the 4"=10.16cm) to add to 2' 😉 (60.96cm)

Ahh, my bad, thank you so much for your kind reminder.🌿

[wizard]

Am 16.2.2022 um 18:46 schrieb busyx2:

Wide open, the 'F2' on this lens is 1/2 stop dimmer than a comparing Summicron 35mm 7-element.

A comparison wide open is not as exact as a comparison of the lenses when stopped down. Wide open vignetting is more pronounced, especially with faster lenses, and that may lead to the result which have obtained, namely just 1/2 stop of difference.

Try comparing your alleged Summicron 8-element set to f5.6 with your Summicron 7-element set to f8, and I am pretty sure you will get the same exposure result. As explained above, since your "Summicron 8-element" is in fact a Summaron (but uses the Summicron's aperture ring), the indicated f-stops are incorrect (indicated f2 is in fact 2.8, indicated f2.8 is in fact f4, and so on).

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[a.noctilux]

@busyx2

this intriguing Summicron/Summaron can be "proved" easily.

I imagine in same situation as this, how can I discover simply.

Searching a bit and having in front of me the two lense.

Wizard's process is not bad, proving that F/5.6 on the ring = F/8 in real.

👍

...

So OP, can you just close the lens one stop (2.8), and report back the shape of the aperture.

Round or angular ?

[luigi bertolotti]

Just checked my 8 elements 1.971.229 : front is definitely different - less recessed and wider front element  (btw, feet scale goes to 28" - and it's an LTM with factory fit adapter- nothing strange) : confirmed that this one is a Summaron... an odd mix of parts 

Edited February 18, 2022 by luigi bertolotti